Well?

Well?

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 124K)

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9708013
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

This shit post AGAIN

>if the universe was created by the Big Bang, who caused the Big Bang?

Anyone who asks these sort of questions is outing themselves as a retard

>a supernatural being couldn't have possibly been here forever
>therefore the universe, which follows a strict set of rules, has been here forever

a super god

If God created the universe it does not mean He is subject to being created. A =/= B

God created the universe, therefore God created time.
God created time, therefore He precedes time.
God precedes time, therefore nothing precedes God.

God created the space-time-matter continuum. He lives outside of these things. In another realm, more or less. Just like a computer programmer isnt inside a computer when he creates the software.
Btw u have to be 18 to be on this site

But where does he come from?

from imagination land

Time is the duration between events. To suggest that god created time is a paradox. If god existed before time then god would be trapped in a static state forever.

Hence why we refer to the period before God's creation of the universe as eternity: i.e., God has existed since eternity.

However, to suggest that God was trapped in stasis is to suggest that God was subordinate to that which He is the author of: everything. As God is omnipotent, this is not possible. God at once existed eternally before creation and also authored that creation, and by extension time. This is a mystery, much as God is at once Father and Son.

What is duration?

You mortal beings can't grasp the concept of eternity.

yes, of course grandpa

this universe is just one process among trillions, existence itself is eternal

therefore the loop is the such god. but he might not even be sentient at all as we think.

ah, the unfalsifiable "because the bible said so"-theory

>whatever was before the universe was bound by our rules
clearly that's not that case stop being retarded

Attached: 6ffad4c1c1954a4de61d1780bbc9d51b219cf03f16cef17685b584e2b0d5faf8.png (480x478, 123K)

That level of intelligence is past most goy. Yes there is a old man in the sky who controls everything, who likes the Jews above all other people. He demands foreskins and your utter loyalty to his “chosen people”! Pagan worship is for fools obviously nothing can be taken from trying to understand the natural order of your existence. What goy? No that isn’t the modern practice of science! Goy didn’t create science the rabbi did with their ultra IQ’s on Jew accounting practices. Herb and medicine is a lie and goys didn’t create that too obviously only Jewish prayer works goy. No our terrible religion hasn’t stunted human progress due too rules most people already followed but with Jews it needs to be ingrained into their dna through repeated schooling.

Just admit that you don't know

>teenage atheist sunday question

Boltzmann brain

I encourage you to actually read theological literature, but I'll make it simple for you: God is perfect in every way. This perfection includes existence. Perfection of existence would include having always existed and continuing to exist, while existing in all times and places all at once. If a being was not perfect in every way, then it would not be God, but since God is perfect in every way, He must have always existed.

Attached: 1480614417583.png (507x464, 38K)

Either you're a retard or you're trolling.

I don't know how anyone can read the arguments of Saint Acquinis and not believe God exists

this argument holds as long as you don't leave the realm of rational discourse, which you do when you say that not even the most fundamental laws of nature apply to god

The Bible doesn't really say it, though. Not explicitly, at least. Genesis begins with "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth." What preceded creation is not mentioned, though by way of reason we must concluded that God, as the author of creation, preceded it.

They don't. What, exactly, do you think people mean when they say "supernatural"? What do you think that word means? How can the author of natural laws be subordinate to that which he brought into being?

Aquinas

The word has always existed.

>Who moved the Unmoved Mover?
Nobody did you jackass, the unmoved mover is unmoved by definition.
Read some Aquinas.

>I don't know how anyone can read the arguments of Saint Acquinis and not believe God exists
all of his arguments are the same thing reiterated 5 times

"if there is stuff, this stuff had to come from somewhere. This something i call god"

it's the most basic bitch stuff, he completely skips all reasoning regarding how this creator is necessarily a person with a consciousness rather than an inanimate force

i give 2/5

God is eternal.

Doesn't matter if its a person or an inanimate force nigger, still God.

if we're to assume that there's a creator at all

And that's outside the realm of rational discourse because regardless of what argument i present, you will just counter with "nu-uh, god can do that!".

David.

Unironically you did, God.

Cause and effect is an illusion. They have to be since taking them seriously just leads to paradoxes. Al-Ghazali and David Hume were right.

Because theology and philosphy are a conversation. There have been plenty of criticisms of his premises and conclusions.

If something created the universe, what created something? Your ill-conceived question is equivalent only to "How do we exist?" God by no means being an implausible answer.

The entire cosmological argument is as follows:

1. All Effects have Causes
2. An infinite Cause-Effect chain is impossible as it would result in an infinite regression.
3. Therefore there must be an initial Cause or Principle that acts as the first link in the chain.

Now legitimate criticisms of this argument would be as follows:

Why should we assume the First Cause is sentient? Couldn't it just be a mathematical principle? Why should we associate this Principle with a given Deity? What are the logical underpinnings of Causality, are we really so sure that concept is sound?

Do you know what isn't a reasonable response to an argument saying that an infinite cause-effect chain is impossible? SAYING 'HURR WHAT CAUSED THE FIRST THING?'. The entire argument is that there must be a thing that comes First, if something else caused it, it wouldn't be the First Thing, it'd be the Second Thing, and whatever caused it would be the First Thing.

Saying 'Who created God?' in response to the cosmological argument is so utterly pants on head retarded, because for the sake of that argument 'God' is defined as 'That which comes First'. If something created 'God', then that 'God' wouldn't be the First Cause, its Creator would be. I get so furious at people not even understanding the basic precepts of the argument before they criticize it.

Attached: CelestChoire.png (492x500, 41K)

The usual answer to this is 'God is eternal, he has no creator'. You can try to debate that, but it's like playing out an imaginary fight in kindergarten with that kid.
These threads don't accomplish anything. You won't make true believers stop believing, and even if you did, why do you care? Better to have Christians around than the alternative.

how could an inanimate force be called god?

the personhood is what differentiates god from natural world

Man.

Super God

unironically this

>if we're to assume that there's a creator at all
But that's an entirely unrelated question. The question in the OP already grants as assumed that God exists.

But you haven't presented a rational argument. Your argument has been that the Being which preceded and created natural law must necessarily be restricted by and subordinate to it, when that's entirely counter to reason.

You're referring to the Five Ways, which are solely arguments for the existence of God as the primum movens. They're not intended to persuade one of anything other than that God exists. Such arguments are elsewhere in the Summa.

>Well?
Post more than once and I'll answer you.

>Well?
he was BIG BANGED!

lol btfo atheists forever

Creation and destruction are constructs of this reality, formed through the relationship of time and matter.

God, a perfect infinity, doesn't need a creator. He needs nothing.

This threads have become increasingly dumber.

Attached: Sinners-in-the-hands-of-angry-God.jpg (269x350, 27K)

For the Abrahamic definition perhaps.

Evolution of elements. We are made from star dust. The universe created gods, then gods created men.

Wrong. The universe is a bacteria colony thats growing on/in what we call god.

Wrong. Universe is simply in the pocket of another universe. Intelligence existed outside of this universe with a mystery surrounding when the pattern all began. Eons upon eons.

My dick

Less complex unknowns are always better than highly complex unknowns.

The ultimate truth is we are just a statistical aberation in an eternal random ontological field.

arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9708013

something has to be eternal, that's the only way anything makes sense. you can't make something out of nothing.

that eternal is God.

this is just a disagreement on terms, 100% of atheists would be comfortable with your definition of god

True God is eternal. Gods of religion are myths. This is a fact.

>Less complex unknowns are always better than highly complex unknowns.
Why? The world is highly complex.

You think its rational to presume that the universe was created by a being existing in a single eventless point outside existence? Because without the thing that we call time, that what you get; A god trapped forever, unable to do anything, because for anything to happen there needs to be an event consisting of a point A and a point B.

You cant even say that everything that god does happens instantaneous, because for something to happen at all, it needs to move away from point A. Even if there's a omnipotent, omnipresent being outside the universe that created the universe, there has to be a succession of events. For there to be a transition from nothing to something, god would have to experience what we call time.

Your whole philosophy is way up its own ass.

>Why?
Less complexity means less axiomatic assumptions.
>The world is highly complex.
Yes, emergent complexity from interactions between smaller & simpler components. That's why low complexity models are preferred.

if the universe was created according to the laws of science, then who/what created the laws of science?

Dude, you're putting a lot of effort into being obtuse.
God doesn't experience time like we do. He is outside of time. He is JRR Tolkien not Frodo. Every time he opens the book Frodo is doing something in a succession of events but that doesn't mean it's happening to Tolkien too. He is the creator not part of his creation.

>cant argue the point
>cant argue

It's the same question, but the difference is that the big bang has more evidence than god

mods?
ban op for being this underage pls

Atheists BTFO!

Attached: AtheistUniverseOriginBtfo.jpg (1121x346, 110K)

>the big bang has more evidence than god
You literally believe that, don't you athiot. You have no fucking clue what you're even talking about. Kikes told you there is no God and that nothingness exploded to form stars and squirrels, assured you they had proof, and your personal hatred of God made you accept it without asking even one more question.
PATHETIC

Every human being on earth believes in God. The only question is whether he is a conscious actor or an unconscious actor.

You have no basis for proving that, just assumption

>Less complexity means less axiomatic assumptions.
And axiomatic assumptions are bad?

>Yes, emergent complexity from interactions between smaller & simpler components. That's why low complexity models are preferred.
Any low complexity model necessarily does not fit our high complexity world.

>But I have every reason to assume it makes sense that nothingness explodes sometimes to create universes.

God IS

If you don't understand this statement then I don't know who can help your pea sized brain.

But you cant prove that in reality, anymore than anyone can't prove it was bill Cosby who created the universe and all the jello pudding pops therein

Or the flying spaghetti monster or something

We live in a simulation where there is no god but eventually creates the conditions where it brings itself into existence

What makes you think that our rules of time, space, dimension, etc are universal?

That's all speculative and even imaginative without proof

Super natural just means "we don't fucking know what"

Let's just leave it at that yeah? Instead of putting stock in sand nigger fairy tales

>atheists are logical
>atheists believe the logical impossibility that anything more than nothing can come from nothing

Obviously jehues died for sin, amirite?!

>>Less complexity means less axiomatic assumptions.
>And axiomatic assumptions are bad?
It's always better to minimise assumptions in a model.
>>Yes, emergent complexity from interactions between smaller & simpler components. That's why low complexity models are preferred.
>Any low complexity model necessarily does not fit our high complexity world.
It fits perfectly if it explains high complexity phenomena (people, computers) as emerging from the interactions between simpler components (atoms, electromagnetism)

why do people bother any more with this. We don't know if there's a God or not. Until we do, why bother with it?

god created god
now shut up retard

Crowley.

God is eternal cuck.

>the LARPagans are at it again
I'm even christian but even I'm fucking sick of your shit.

A strange metaphor considering how we know for a fact that Tolkien did experience time, and that Frodo didn't as he was fictional.

Time is how we perceive the duration between events. If there was a point at which there was nothing but god, and then another where god decided to create the universe, there had to be an event in which he moved from one point to another. What we're talking about is sequentiality, which essentially is what we call time.

I would also like to point out that according to the bible, god does experience time. Time doesn't matter to god since he's timeless and immortal, but he experiences its passing nonetheless.

I created god

>It fits perfectly if it explains high complexity phenomena (people, computers) as emerging from the interactions between simpler components (atoms, electromagnetism)
>thinking atoms or electromagnetism are simple

This is how your worldview collapses in on itself and why scientists are just perpetually wrong in new ways.

You either see the entire complicated picture or you know absolutely nothing.

God 2

>1 post by this ID
SAGE SAGE SAGE

Basically admitting that you don't have an explat

>who created the Big Bang
Fixed it for you, the answer is Man.

This

Found the pea brain.

Attached: 1521823803125.png (488x463, 28K)

You didn't argue the point because you couldn't, and also you don't know how the big bang works or how well matter can be compressed inside of black holes, because there wasn't a nothingness

The universe is god and its a female spirit that keeps devorouing and rebirthing itself until it reaches the ultimate superstar and then some other crazy shit will happen